Warp wrote:
>   I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
> what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
> festivity. It's called that because of tradition.

Actually, I think you'll find it was Saturnalia before Christmas, and Yule 
before that. That said, I agree that calling it something other than 
"Christmas Vacation" in the USA at least is kind of pointless.

On the other hand, I can see where calling a woman a "broad" or a "dame" or 
some other such derogatory name could offend, so I can see where calling the 
holiday "Christmas" even when speaking to Pagans could perhaps offend.

>   Why shouldn't this work in reverse? Why should anyone have the right to
> come here and start complaining about some festivity or its naming?

Well, "here" in the USA we have lots of religions that aren't Christian. If 
it offends them to imply that Christians are the only ones that celebrate 
the winter solstice I can certainly avoid offense in circumstances where I 
know not everyone is Christian. (If you're atheist, being offended by the 
holiday being called Christmas would seem to me to be rather silly, mind.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:04:25 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one
>> "special" group of religions.
> 
> I've always thought a good test would be to replace "god" with "satan".
> Are people still going to say it's not about religion if people start
> putting "In Satan We Trust" on government buildings? Handing out "Praise
> Satan" flyers in class?

That does seem like a good test, at least to root out those who say it's 
about "freedom of religion" but who really mean it's about "freedom of 
THEIR religion".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion 
> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on 
> others rights of freedom of religion.

That's like saying I political canvassing doesn't fall under free speech.

Of course they have the right to talk to you, just as you have the right 
to ignore them.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> I've always thought a good test would be to replace "god" with "satan". 
> Are people still going to say it's not about religion if people start 
> putting "In Satan We Trust" on government buildings? Handing out "Praise 
> Satan" flyers in class?

That's the thing, I don't thing anyone would sue the school over not 
allowing them to hand out "Praise Satan" fliers.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:

> 
> That's like saying I political canvassing doesn't fall under free speech.
> 
> Of course they have the right to talk to you, just as you have the right 
> to ignore them.
> 
> ...Chambers

But there are laws regarding political canvassing. They cannot do so 
within a certain distance from the polling place, for example.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Well, "here" in the USA we have lots of religions that aren't Christian. 
> If it offends them to imply that Christians are the only ones that 
> celebrate the winter solstice I can certainly avoid offense in 
> circumstances where I know not everyone is Christian. (If you're 
> atheist, being offended by the holiday being called Christmas would seem 
> to me to be rather silly, mind.)
> 

I am sure the radicals think we are offended. Mostly, we consider it 
funnier than hell. May be the wrong day, even if you argue for the 
existence of the dude its based on, celebrated using pagan trees the 
Bible itself says its a sin to put up each year, and dedicated, except 
among the really obsessed, to a fat man in a red suit, for yet another 
pagan mythology, and only, by a much tinier amount, to the ideals, but 
not necessarily the person, its "supposedly" named after. And don't even 
get me started on the cobbled together manger stuff, which is based some 
  European nonsense, and gets both what a manger is (usually a cave, but 
sometimes a two level structure), and that they where, and still are, 
*commonly* used in the ME as places to stay (animals below, on the 
ground keep the people up top warm).

Oh, and every year I greatly enjoy using Xmas, and setting off the 
endless number of morons that don't know that X is the Roman Chi, first 
letter in their gods name, and are all horrified that I am "attacking 
Christmas!". lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion 
> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on 
> others rights of freedom of religion.

So two guys, who are members of a given religion, are discussing their 
faith's holy writ (whether the Bible, the Quran, Origin of Species, 
etc.) during their lunch break at work.  Someone who does not share 
their ideas is sitting at the next table.

Let us also say that the local government is hostile to the religion of 
the two fellows holding the discussion.  So the third fellow can shut 
them up by accusing them of attempting to convert him.

Your position is a recipe for systematic oppression.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> So two guys, who are members of a given religion, are discussing their 
> faith's holy writ (whether the Bible, the Quran, Origin of Species, 
> etc.) during their lunch break at work.  Someone who does not share 
> their ideas is sitting at the next table.

That's not a comparable situation at all. The student handing out the 
candy canes was not merely discussing religion, they were overtly 
attempting to proselytize. The school and the school's staff wanted none 
of it, and asked that they not directly hand the notes to other students.

> Let us also say that the local government is hostile to the religion of 
> the two fellows holding the discussion.  So the third fellow can shut 
> them up by accusing them of attempting to convert him.

Doesn't this sort of thing happen when, say, Muslims even so much as try 
to discuss their religion. They're immediately branded terrorists.

> Your position is a recipe for systematic oppression.
> 




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:52:42 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Doesn't this sort of thing happen when, say, Muslims even so much as try
> to discuss their religion. They're immediately branded terrorists.

I call BS.  :-)

They're immediately branded "terrorists" by people too lazy (or dumb) to 
know the difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> 
> I call BS.  :-)
> 
> They're immediately branded "terrorists" by people too lazy (or dumb) to 
> know the difference between extremists and mainstream Muslims.
> 

My wife had a very long argument with someone who considered all Muslims 
terrorists. It does happen, unfortunately.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message